The following etiquette and house rules are almost universally observed in both competitive and friendly games. They should be assumed during any PBEM game unless there has been an explicit statement before the game is started that they do not apply.

SR-1: Do not restart the same turn to gain an advantage. You may not overwrite and then reload a partially played turn in order to replay the turn, or any part of the turn.

SR-2: Do not look ahead to the next player's turn. You may not load games which are identical to a successive player's turn regardless (from what directory they are or) whether that player uses a password or not.

SR-3: Explain restart messages. If you generate a restart message on your turn, especially during turns with key battles, then explain the circumstances regarding the restart message to your opponents.

SR-4: Do not attack on the same turn that you declare war. After declaring war against an opponent with whom you are at peace you must wait at least one turn before attacking them. (Casting spells on another players units or cities without permission constitutes an attack, as does surrounding a players unit on 4 of 6 sides or more so they would be forced to sit still rather than break this rule.) This rule does not apply if there is no initial diplomatic status between the two opponents. Tip: Declare war at the end of turn, after moving your units. This to avoid surprise-attacks that can come through the 'new enemy' cave entrance unit or concealed units.

SR-5: Do not declare war on the same turn that you break alliance. After breaking an alliance you must wait at least one turn before declaring war against your former ally.

SR-6: Do not abuse the magic catalyst bug. If not used up immediatelely, the extra 50 casting points will be useful for several turns when casting large summons. The bug keeps the 70/20 value active for several turns. A spell costing 210 mana to cast, can be done in 3 turns, instead of 8, for example.

SR-7: Do not abuse the Summoners Aura bug. (Pbem) This bug allows summons influenced by the summoners Aura spell to regain all their health when exiting the turn (legal, via [esc]) and reloading again.

SR-8: Do not use the Resurgent Zombie cheat to gain extra experience. Resurgent Zombies award full experience points each time they are killed. You may not repeatedly retaliate against Resurgent Zombies with a Hero for the purpose of gaining extra experience points.

SR-9: Do not abuse the web/pathing bug. When a unit that is affected by webs is moving through a web, do not use any techniques that allow it to move farther than it should be able to. Moving only one hex at a time through webs will normally prevent this bug from taking effect.

OPTIONAL HOUSE RULES

The following etiquette and house rules are sometimes used, but should not be assumed. They are generally used in casual, non-competitive games in which the goal of the game is just to have fun.

OR-1: Do not look in the editor to locate points of interest on the map. You may not load the map you are playing in the editor, and then ALT+TAB between the game and the editor in order to "explore" the map more efficiently.

OR-2: Do not use the migration trick. Do not temporarily migrate your cities, for the sole purpose of gaining favourable race relations to buy campsites or cities!

OR-3: Do not send flame messages using the in-game message system. If you are going to taunt your opponents using the in-game message system, then be sure that they know it is good-natured and not malicious.

OR-4: Using the spell Call Hero is not allowed.(WT Only) Since some scenarios have very strong heroes placed as independent on the map, calling such a hero tips the balance far too much.(This has been fixed in SM)

OR-5: Units are not allowed to stay on Wall (obstacle type) structures on the worldmap (UPatchv1.4 Only)Applies to all players and refers only to the obstacle-type wall segments. Units that are capable (flyers, floaters) are allowed to cross, or attack from the walls but should not end their turn on top of these.Exception: when, in a battle, the flyer on top of wall segment retreats in Fast Combat and movement points are set to zero.

OR-6: Restrict the use of the Resurrection ability to your own units.If, for any reason, an enemy unit is resurrected during TC (Tactical Combat) or FC (Fast combat) battle, such unit can be used, but should be disbanded after the battle ends.

How to configure a PBEM game

For an extensive coverage of how to configure and/or play a AOW2/SM PBEM game lease see Nojd's writeup.

Other items worthy of note:

Microsoft Outlook and Outlook Express do not have inboxes that can be scanned automatically for attachments. You will need to save the turns individually to the Emailin folder.

Autosend requires you have direct access to an SMTP server. (See the writeup for more details.)

Do not use the Dominate/Disband cheat to gain extra experience. If you possess a hero (or leader) with the Dominate ability, you may not use that hero (or leader) to Dominate, Disband and then slay units for the purpose of gaining experience points. It is understood that some enemy units may be Dominated during Fast Combat, and these units may be Disbanded and slain.

That rule is not necessary in AoW2, because units in AoW2 will disappear when you disband them...

Kris

JomungurMember

posted
06-20-02 11:19 AM
EDT (US)
2 / 311

You could substitute it with "Do Not Use the Zombie Resurgence Exploit to Level Up Your Heroes"

Ehm...what's a restart message? (kalf, who didn't play a PBEM yet but is approaching fast

thanks a lot

NojdMember

posted
09-14-02 09:08 AM
EDT (US)
9 / 311

The idea with restart messages is that people shouldn't cheat in PBEM games by replaying a turn that didn't go as well as the player expected. So, if someone loads the same turn again, the game notices this and creates a message to all players that this person has restarted his game. This restart message is available in the event log window. You also get this message if you play your turn on a different computer than the one used on the previous turn.

There could be legitimate reasons for restarts (the game or Windows crashed, or you're travelling and therefor playing on different computers). If you do create a restart message, please inform the other players what caused it with a post in the turn log thread.

kalfMember

posted
11-10-02 04:43 AM
EDT (US)
10 / 311

Ciao Nojd,thanks for you answer, maybe you can clarify a point: I heard that a game restart later in the game can cause the system to block you for suspect cheating. Since I'll switch often from home to office and back, I'll get often restarts, is it really dangerous?

Thanks a lot,Kalf

NojdMember

posted
11-10-02 05:41 AM
EDT (US)
11 / 311

No block, no danger, only a restart message. Explain the reason for it, and everyone should be happy.

NorgothMember

posted
11-27-02 11:46 AM
EDT (US)
12 / 311

Clarification please: If I am at Peace with someone(not allied), at what point can I initiate attack after I have broken that Peace? Is it the next turn or do I have to wait two turns?

Thanks in advance.

NojdMember

posted
11-27-02 12:08 PM
EDT (US)
13 / 311

If you break the peace today, you may attack tomorrow.

If you break the peace today, your new enemy may attack you immediately (i.e. during your "night").

FubarnoMember

posted
12-04-02 02:37 AM
EDT (US)
14 / 311

I have a question for the mods to ponder.

I am in a game where a player I was at peace with sent me a message that he was declaring war on me, observed the one turn delay in attacking but didn't actually formalize the declaration on the 'horn' screen.

The probem was that my new enemy had a spider in my rear area and I wished to eliminate it. I ended up having to formalize the declaration in order to attack. This had the effect of reducing my reputation level which effects ones ability to attract hero's and negotiate with neutrals. Maybe my opponent forgot to formalize his declaration but, if not, would this be improper?

PS This is not a game breaker for me in this current game but should be ruled on for future games and players to have as a guide.

NojdMember

posted
12-04-02 10:16 AM
EDT (US)
15 / 311

IMO the house rules for for breaking alliances and declaring war/attacking refer to the official status on the "horn screen".

Diplomatic negotiations done secretly via private messages are informal and have no value in court.

FubarnoMember

posted
12-07-02 10:11 PM
EDT (US)
16 / 311

Thanks for the answer to my last question.

My opponent wrote me the message within the game and on our log that he was going to war with me but, according to him, forgot in the excitement of his turn to formalize it by going to the horn screen and actually hit 'declare war'.

In a future situation like this, would the beligerent have to hold off on attacking for another turn?

He thought he might want to use this as a strategy in future games, to state his intention of attacking his opponent but not actually hitting the 'declare war' button until the next turn when he is allowed, by house rules, to do so. This forces the opponent to hit 'declare war' if he wants to make the legal preemptive attack.

One other question.

Is there an accepted standard for a player to forfeit?

I am in very long running 4 player game, INLAND SEA (RightousF/revealos/Fubarno/izaquyos) where we have opened up a mini debate on the subject.

Revealos forfeited at turn 24 when no one else had yet been eliminated and he thought going on was pointless. I differed in opinion and found a sub, wanderingoutlaw, that has greatly turned things around. We are now at Day 61 and there have been some interesting power shifts. Wanderingoutlaw is now quite powerful and has the potential to win (no allied victory).

Then there is RightousFroggy who brought up the question of forfeiting. He never gave up even though he didn't have much chance at winning, was continually threatened, yet still managed to pull off some sneeky and well thought out attacks that kept him in the game and very tough for his opponents until day 61.

In my mind one shouldn't surrender when there are more than one other opponent involved as this may give unfair advantage to one of those remaining and is also sort of disrespectful to the remaining players who have invested time into the game.

If it is down to the last two opponents and one feels the situation is hopeless than a surrender or forfeiture of the win seems acceptable.

Some may think it is not as fun to play on in a game where the outcome is impossibly against you, but I will try with all my skill to make that defeat as hard as possible for my opponent and at the same time hope to learn more about the game through my loss. (Steps off the soapbox)

ZombieEaterMember

posted
12-08-02 05:03 AM
EDT (US)
17 / 311

Well, here's another question:

In my River Arne game, Ellendra just cast Call Hero - and guess what? She called a lvl 20 Drac Hero!!!

River Arne is a pretty tough map, lots of strong indies running around, making your days really miserable. One player has already been eliminated by said indies. Nobody seems to be really strong at this point. Once Ellendra saves up the money to buy the Drac, things will go a lot better for her, I bet!

My question now: In a designed map, where high level Heroes have been placed, should it be prohibited to use Call Hero, because you can pull one of those Heroes and really tilt the playing field? Get yourself a strong Hero, and weaken a designed strong defense somewhere in one Spell?

It is roaming the depths in eternal hunger, devouring all and everything, far from the light, lost in the shadows, alone, wandering, searching, evermore...

NojdMember

posted
12-10-02 10:12 AM
EDT (US)
18 / 311

Quoted from Fubarno:

He thought he might want to use this as a strategy in future games, to state his intention of attacking his opponent but not actually hitting the 'declare war' button until the next turn when he is allowed, by house rules, to do so. This forces the opponent to hit 'declare war' if he wants to make the legal preemptive attack.

If he forgets to declare war, he's not allowed to attack. He'll just have to postpone his plans one day. The opponent is not "forced" to declare war, he can simply enjoy peace for another day.

I noticed a bug that's related to this. I really don't know what to do with the rules in this case.

Quoted from Bug Forum:

If player A and player B have diplomatic negotiations so that one of them offers (or is requested) to go to war against player C, then player C is never alerted that he/she is at war! It's visible on the diplomacy screen, but the war message is missing.

Quoted from Fubarno:

Is there an accepted standard for a player to forfeit?

I share Fubarno's opinion. The decent thing to do is to keep playing as long as you have any kind of influence in the game. It's not nice towards the other players to just lay down your weapons since that completely would shift the balance in the game. And, if you're in such a bad shape in the game that you're thinking about surrender, then your turns should be fairly quick to play. Play the game for your PBEM friends' sake even if you can't win!

The situation is this: Two players move in succession in the turn order. Since they want to keep their relationship secret, they use the following procedure to exchange intel, spells and what else: The one moving first offers peace/alliance, spells and whatelse, while number two accepts this, writes a message describing or takes screenshots of interesting areas, then before ending his turn he declares war again. Any other players will assume the two are opponents.Drawback is that player 2īs rep will suffer.Thoughts?

FlitterMember

posted
12-11-02 09:50 AM
EDT (US)
20 / 311

In the diplomatic screen you can see the make peace and declare war action, so you know that the two players are making some strange moves.

EllumeshMember

posted
12-11-02 12:32 PM
EDT (US)
21 / 311

Flitter, the diplo screen only show the current status. In my example the current status before and after the two "secret" allies moves is war.

Evil RocMember

posted
12-11-02 03:28 PM
EDT (US)
22 / 311

There is a screen where all famous deeds are logged. (wizard info). Declaring wars and making alliances can be seen there.

EllumeshMember

posted
12-12-02 07:52 AM
EDT (US)
23 / 311

Ah yes! Thanks for the info, that should resolve this...

greenmonsterMember

posted
05-12-03 02:16 PM
EDT (US)
24 / 311

Quote:

Do not use the Incarnate Possess/Disband cheat to gain extra movement points. You may not use the Incarnate Possess/Disband cheat which is commonly used with Archers in order to gain movement points from the possessed unit, and move your Incarnate an almost unlimited number of times per turn.

also, this is outdated for aow2... an incarnate can not leave its host willingly. disbanding the unit the incarnate is in will disband the incarnate, also.

greenmonsterMember

posted
07-20-03 12:49 PM
EDT (US)
25 / 311

is it 'legal' to use dispel magic on units of a wizard you are at peace or allied with (without their permission)?

what about casting an area affect spell that affects their units, such as poison plants, or divine storm?

what if you cast such spell into an area, not knowing that the 'friendly' wizard has a concealed unit there?

my guess is that in the spirit of the rules I would say that it depends upon the intention of the wizard, but I guess Cay is the final word.

The first scenario you mentioned seems there would be the intent to hurt your ally rather than help him and sounds a little backstabbing.

The second scenario though does depend if it put both he and you at an advantage (like using posion plants on both your ally and your enemies to cripple the power of your enemy so you can both triumph, even though he gets hurt too).

On the last scenario, I would say that if your intention was not to hurt your ally, it would be fine. However, anyway there are fair ways of finding if your ally has concealed units there... even at peace.

I agree with what Tekk Zero has written. Each of those situations has a different intent, and will have different implications on the game. Seems to me that this would be a messy area to try to address with rules. Common sense and discretion should be enough to sort things out in any given situation. Other opinions?

I would probably say that anything you did that caused HP damage to an allie or a peaceful wizard is illegal (unless it is by accident. ie; casting poison plants in an area, not knowing a peaceful unit was concealed there.).

I would also think that casting dispel magic on an allie was poor form (unless he had a negative enchantment he didnt want; somtimes people cast 'fury' on an enemy to lower hteir defense). That said, I wouldnt have a problem casting 'dispel magic' on 'friendly' troops, since they can be posistioning themselves for an assault against you so they can declare war. I think any 'fishy' manuevering like that deserves a dispel magic.

I am unsure if it should be ok to cast movement impeeding spells, like 'raise mountains' around a friendly or allied stack. While not causing physical damage, that spell can basically eliminate a full stack, so I would say that that use is illegal. if not cast around a stack, it would be fine. a spell like the new 'spider web' would also be fine, as it is only a 1 hex spell (I think it is at least...).

One question -- by definition, wouldn't the kind of behavior Greenmonster's describing only happen in a FFA game? In a WL team game, there's no rational reason (that I can think of) to go out of your way to cause an ally harm. The only time a player might want to do this would be when he plans a backstab, which would only occur in a FFA. And aren't free-for-all games just that, free for alls? If players want to ban such shady behavior, it strikes me that they're certainly free to, but should there be a board-wide rule covering this? It seems to me that the victim's recourse here is to reply in kind, to declare war on his former "ally" himself, etc.

I am just trying to avoid the situation where 1 wizard does something like dispel the enchantments off of 'friendly' or 'allied' units in a non-team game, only to have the other wizard turn around and say 'that was illegal!'...

because that can only lead down bad roads...

('you HAVE to give up 'x' unit(s) because of this', 'you need to replay that turn (which happened before 5-7 other people played turns in between)', 'you cant replay a turn because its unfair', 'I'm never playing with you again!', etc...)

Been thinking about this a little more, and what about the following rule:

"If a player's ally takes unamiguously hostile action against him/her, not involving a declaration of war (such actions could include: dispelling that player's enchantments, casting spells which cause harm to the player's units, etc.), then for that player's turn immediately following the offensive action, the effects of the rules limiting declarations of war and attacks against that ally shall be suspended, and immediate reprisals shall be permitted.

Specifically, the following rules shall be suspended:

1) Do not attack on the same turn that you declare war. After declaring war against an opponent with whom you are at peace you must wait at least one turn before attacking them. This rule does not apply if there is no initial diplomatic status between the two opponents.

2) Do not declare war on the same turn that you break alliance. After breaking an alliance you must wait at least one turn before declaring war against your former ally."

A little wordy, maybe, but the idea is pretty simple. Make the in-game avenues of recourse easier, so that stabbed players will be less inclined to gripe outside the game.

What do you think?

-- JWorth

greenmonsterMember

posted
07-27-03 12:27 PM
EDT (US)
33 / 311

i like it, but first we need to see if casting dipel magic on friendly or allied troops is even legal...

I cast iceage, and my Tigran ally has a lot of cities and/or troops in my domain.

My ally has a stack next to a hostile indy city. I attack the city with my gladerunner, use my ally's troop to the last man in the siege, and then capture the city for myself. Oh, and then I teleport the artifacts from my ally's dead hero back to my capital after the siege. And maybe I cast resurrect hero too to claim the hero as my own.

My ally is sending troops back to defend his capital, and I block the road with my troops in a choke point, cutting him off.

I send gold and mana to his nearest enemy, or trade spells with his enemy.

I trade a magic relay to my ally's enemy, placing his capital in that enemy's domain.

My ally is making an obvious beeline to a resource pile, and I rush troops there and beat him by two hexes. (or even worse, one hex, and then use his troops to take the pile for myself).

I could go on forever. My idea is that FFA means just that -- Free For All. If you get a reputation as being a back stabber, then people won't let you into their games, so in essence good behavior should be moderated by peer pressure and not a lot of convoluted rules.

A loose set of guidelines would be nice for newbies to see, and it would give them a feel of what to expect and how to interact; basically a gentlemen's code of conduct. If it gets too complicated then we could scare new people off. If in the game you want to offer someone an alliance, then you can always attach terms to the alliance.

If you're playing co-op or alliance enabled then it just makes sense to help your ally out. If you're playing a true FFA where "there can be only one" is the goal, then I would expect that a well placed backstab would be part of game. Just like real life, the bottom line is to pick and choose your allies well.

Former PBEM singles champion.

Tekk ZeroMember

posted
07-27-03 06:30 PM
EDT (US)
35 / 311

I agree with you there Dayth. If I were to add one more rule it would be, as long as your are allied you must extend courtesy to your ally, rather than intentionally backstab him/her. That in itself I think would be enough. Intentions of an action that hurts your ally is far more important. If it was an honest mistake, then I don't see any need to do anything, but if it was intentional that should be prohibited.

However, I would make it an optional house rule, that can be agreed before a game by players. I remember a game that was setup in the original AoW that was intended for allies to be backstabbing just to add more fun. You never know if someone likes that stuff. As you said the rule should be a gentleman's agreement.

Actually, I'm inclined to agree as well -- my original "a free for all is just that" comment is really where I stand. The rule I suggested is an attempt to permit backstabbing, but simply make retaliation a bit easier for the aggrieved party. I'm starting to be convinced that any rule here would be impossible to administer.

If a free for all is a free for all, though, I don't really think that a house rule requiring courtesy towards allies is called for. The law of the jungle is probably the only one that's enforceable in these situations .

Maybe in future, victimized parties should just be pointed towards this discussion if they start to complain too loudly .

this is an interesting discussion, even to one as myself, not into the pbem community, rather having played langames and sp as well as having made maps since the dawn of aow2. I must say i agree on the ffa deal, as i find diplomacy to be the most intricate part of free games - it is there wits will clash. In just that same free sense it feels like, from the discussion being held here and the comments on the maps of aow2heaven, that there is a sick focus on balance. I understand it might be important to people who must prove themselves, but in the long run I find unbalanced maps alot more interesting since they allow for much more multicoloured play.For example a worldwar2 scenario cannot in any sense be balanced, still I would find it a most interesting scenario to play since even the smaller nations might play a role.

DafythMember

posted
08-07-03 01:03 PM
EDT (US)
38 / 311

Balance is important in WL games, where points and rankings measure success. Everyone wants to start off on equal footing. It's not really something that I'd call "sick".

Balance is not as important in FFA, co-op, or simple friendly matches.

I play both kinds of games. If WL points are on the line, then I am very picky about the map and set up. If it is a non-WL game, I am much more open to playing a "weak" side for the challange, or an untested map.

tripcrowMember

posted
08-13-03 09:20 AM
EDT (US)
39 / 311

With the manual combat fixed for PBEM by the patch it brings up a new advantage for 1 player in the game. The player whose turn is before the AI moves gets to choose between fast and manual combat with any AI initiated attacks because the AI takes its turn after the last player but before the turn actually gets sent. Any combat between the last player and the AI during the AIís turn brings up a combat option screen. Not so for the other players in the turn order?

Unless Iím missing something here, like itís just triggered by movable AI stacks for all players in the game, it may be a good etiquette for any player that is offered manual combat, once they are done with their turn and during the AIís move, to pick fast combat so as not to have an advantage over the other players that have all their AI initiated combat settled by quick combat.

bluedustMember

posted
08-26-03 06:31 PM
EDT (US)
40 / 311

What is good etiquette concerning writing turn log posts? I am playing in a game and writing turn logs on a different web board, mostly because I find it fun to write them, and I hope that others enjoy reading them. Anyway, this one guy attacks me without warning, so I write something like "the foul Elves attacked us without warning". This guy gets all bent out of shape, accusing me of "cheating" and revealing stuff to other players that they wouldn't normally know. I am relatively new to PBEM, so how do the "pros" handle this? Did I commit some faux pas?